Residential Flat Buildings (x 2) at Burgoyne Street, Burgoyne Lane and Pearson Avenue, Gordon

Please see attached - Objection to proposal.

This proposed development is totally inappropriate for the intended site and setting.
Ku-ring-gai Council has submitted its proposed solution which adequately meets the Government's requirements for additional housing in this LGA. .
1. This development does not accomodate or address in any way the Council's proposed siting of medium and high rise residential building in Gordon.
2. The development is totally unsuited to the very hilly terrain and difficult access to its proposed site.
3.Storm water drainage and sewerage infrastructure and hard surfaces proposed for this site given its steep site and generally hilly terrain will be unable to cope with heavy rainfall events, leading to destructive run off and flood events and sewage overflows.
4.Burgoyne Lane and Burgoyne Street are narrow and in the case of Burgoyne Street windy laneways which barely cope with existing traffic. The proposed development will significantly exacerbate traffic congestion in this and surrounding streets. There appears to have been little or no attention given to how future residents of the proposed development would be able to enter and exit the basement car parks. The only proposed exit is into Pearson Avenue already gridlocked with traffic in peakhour and other times of the day.
5. The proposed development is entirely out of character with adjoining buildings, which represent the Federation and post Federation character of the site's built environment and the fragile natural environment which supports its endangered birdlife and fauna. This is a fragile site and the proposed development would involve the destruction of mature irreplaceable eucalypts and other species of trees endemic to this area.
6. The logical site for development of this scale is to adopt the Council's recommended sites not on fragile steep escarpments such as the site chosen for this development.

To be honest, I am wondering why we have a Council level of Government at all.
I have thought its key responsibility was for local representatives to understand the needs and concerns of the Ku Ring Gai community and then to represent the people's interests, not the interests of greedy, opportunistic developers.
Walking around Gordon and Roseville on the weekend allowed me to enjoy the pretty autumn leaves,camellias blooming in the gardens of established historically important homes.
The building of this ill-planned 8 storey tower in Gordon ,or is it two buildings?,will destroy forever this vista !The environmental destruction is terrible with 62 trees being destroyed on the Burgoyne/Pearson site alone resulting in the loss of the natural habitats for many native species such as kookaburras, galahs and rosellas to name a few.
The excessive height and the ugly box-like monstrosity will be a blot on the landscape forever, overshadowing many beautiful homes nearby and forever destroying the absolute beauty of Ku Ring Gai.
The entry to the Pacific Highway will be a nightmare affecting not just local traffic but the passage of people going to the Central coast. The traffic around the station / bus stops will be at a grid-lock especially during before and after school hours where Gordon is already choked and under pressure. The parking in streets around the station is full Monday to Friday even before any highrise blocks of units are constructed.
This development is totally inconsistent with the heritage architecture and historical values of Gordon and Ku Ring Gai and will just turn the neighbourhood into another Chatswood. Is that what you want ?

The proposal is overdevelopment, poor design
See attachment

My comments are attached. The project is unsuitable for the area

I object to the proposal as it is completely foreign to the area and does not comply with the Council's preferred plans. More details are included in my attachment

I endorse the submission by Sarah Watson of Gordon.

My comments are attached.

Thank you

I am strongly opposed to the planned Burgoyne and Pearson changes.
The project demonstrates a lack of strategic foresight and planning rigor. Critical elements including traffic flow, infrastructure capacity, emergency service access, and long-term maintenance have been ignored. No feasibility studies appear to be present, and stakeholders, including residents and council, were not adequately consulted during the planning phase. This absence of robust groundwork makes the proposal fragile and unsustainable, increasing the risk of long-term operational issues and public dissatisfaction.

There are notable inconsistencies, omissions, and errors in the project documentation and public communications. Negative impact including displacement of residents, pressure on local services, and traffic congestion, are downplayed or not mentioned at all. These inaccuracies misinform both the public and decision-makers, compromising transparency and accountability.

The architectural and urban design elements of the proposal are underwhelming and poorly aligned with the context. The scale and bulk of the structures are excessive, overshadowing nearby buildings and disrupting sightlines and sunlight. Public space integration is weak or tokenistic, and pedestrian/cyclist safety appears to be an afterthought. Internally, the layout lacks livability, green space is minimal, and energy efficiency standards are not up to contemporary best practices. Overall, the design fails both aesthetically and functionally.

4. Not Fitting with the Community
The project is out of sync with the character, values, and lifestyle of the existing community. It disregards local heritage, architectural rhythm, and neighbourhood cohesion. Rather than enhancing community wellbeing, it imposes a top-down vision that prioritizes commercial or political interests over local needs. There has been insufficient engagement with community groups, First Nations voices, and other key stakeholders. The result is a development that feels imposed, not integrated.

Environmental impacts are deeply concerning. The project threatens to destroy or severely disrupt local ecosystems, including native vegetation, birdlife, and waterways. Increased carbon emissions, noise pollution, and stormwater runoff will degrade the natural landscape. Construction and operation will likely generate significant waste and emissions without sufficient mitigation strategies. It also misses the opportunity to lead on climate-resilient, low-carbon, nature-positive development. This disregard for environmental stewardship is unacceptable in the current climate crisis.

For current residents, the consequences are highly negative. Increased density will place pressure on already strained infrastructure such as schools, public transport, and roads. Noise, dust, and disruption during years of construction will diminish daily quality of life.

The proposed project, in its current form, is fundamentally flawed. It lacks integrity, cohesion, and foresight, and it represents a missed opportunity to deliver something genuinely beneficial to both the community and environment. Approval of such a poorly conceived plan would set a dangerous precedent, and it is imperative that it be reconsidered or significantly revised to reflect proper planning, design excellence, and genuine community alignment.

1. There has been no effort to obtain input from the community.
2. No details have been provided of basic information such as setbacks. I understand that with social housing there will be 8 stories and 100 apartments.
3. There is a single image in a graphic provided in a letterbox drop by unspecified objectors.
4. The recommendations set out in the NSW Apartment Guide are ignored. This Guide refers repeatedly to the importance of scale.
5. The scale is manifestly excessive.
6. The only principle has been to maximise cover of the land and number of stories. There are 2 rectangular parallel buildings in apparent close proximity without any effort to address good design principles. As can be seen by the modern well designed block on the opposite side of Pearson, more modest development is possible.
7. Any assessment MUST have regard to the congestion of the intersection of Park/Pearson/ Werona especially in peak hours, with queues.
8. Council has prepared an alternate Preferred Option which is apparently to be considered by the government. There should not be any assessment till the proposal is determined.
9. There is excessive vegetation loss.
10. This is a premature, rushed and ill considered ambit claim.

I write in the strongest possible terms to oppose the proposed development. This application is deeply flawed—both in substance and process—and presents an overwhelming threat to the amenity, character, and sustainability of Gordon. It reflects a clear disregard for the community, the environment, and the planning principles that are meant to safeguard both.
The scale of this proposal is grossly excessive. What is proposed is not infill development, nor sensitive densification—it is a high-density urban intrusion into a low-rise suburban setting. The building’s sheer height and bulk would dwarf neighbouring homes, encroach upon sightlines, and obliterate any sense of scale transition. There is no coherent integration into the existing urban form; it is simply a commercial monolith jammed into a location utterly unsuited for it. The abrupt clash between the proposed towers and surrounding residential dwellings is not only visually offensive but fundamentally incompatible with the existing planning framework.
Compounding this is the extraordinary environmental cost. The development will result in the removal of over half the trees on the site—62 in total—many of them mature, native, and ecologically significant. These are not disposable landscaping elements, but essential components of Gordon’s tree canopy and biodiversity. Their destruction would result in permanent loss of habitat, increased urban heat, and an erosion of the environmental values the local community has long fought to protect. That this level of ecological harm is proposed under the banner of ‘urban renewal’ is staggering.
The proposal also directly undermines Ku-ring-gai Council’s own strategic planning. The site was specifically excluded from development in the Council’s Preferred Alternative Scenario, on grounds of its proximity to heritage areas and its biodiversity value. That carefully considered exclusion has simply been disregarded. This is not just an oversight—it is an act of planning bad faith.
Perhaps most galling is the absence of any genuine community consultation. There has been no attempt to host a public forum, no opportunity for local residents to ask questions, and no effort to adjust the proposal in light of feedback. Emails have gone unanswered, and there is no available channel to raise concerns. The entire process has unfolded as if community voices are irrelevant. This is not acceptable, particularly for a project of this magnitude and impact.
Furthermore, the traffic implications have been blatantly downplayed. Anyone familiar with the area knows that the Pacific Highway and its surrounding network already struggles with congestion. To suggest that a development of this scale would have “no impact” is both absurd and insulting.
This proposal is driven purely by developer interest, not public benefit. It must be refused.

The proposed development is a gross inconsideration to the wellbeing of Gordon residents and should NOT be approved. Further details are in the objection letter attached.

This project comprises a poorly thought-out solution to the housing crisis. It is being proposed in an already congested area in terms of traffic flow and is completely inconsistent with Ku-ring-gai Council's preferred alternative scenario, under which this particular site was explicitly excluded from development.

At 8 storeys it will tower over existing buildings, many of which are heritage properties or in a heritage conservation area. This will compromise these existing buildings and cause issues with privacy of residents in the existing properties. The design itself is poorly thought out and unattractive and would comprise an abrupt and jarring interface with existing homes and properties.

Above all, the proposed removal of 62 trees on the site is abhorrent. These trees, many of them very old, provide a home to so many native animals and birds. Once these majestic trees are gone, they are gone forever. As well as the impact on wildlife, the destruction of mature trees like these will forever change the visual nature of the beautiful area in which we are so fortunate to live. Ku-ring-gai's trees provide shade and beauty. They create an environment which gives joy to so many and they help to negate the impacts of climate change.

Additionally there has been no significant public consultation regarding this proposal by the developer, which breaches DPHI's Social Impact requirements.

The proposal is a blatantly manipulative and opportunistic attempt to exploit affordable in-fill housing and TOD planning legislation. It should be reviewed by the Independent Planning Commission. At this point hopefully common sense would prevail and the development would not be approved.

I'd like to submit an objection to the develop proposal in Gordon.
1. The proposal will greatly impact public transport, commercial and medical facilities as well as education facilities.
2.The project will remove over 60 trees, including mature native and historically significant specimens. It contradicts with Council’s stated environmental objectives. It is completely unacceptable.
3. The proposal is a private development for private gain. It provides no community facilities, no infrastructure upgrades, no public space, and no social or affordable housing. Its benefits are purely commercial, while its impacts are social, environmental, and irreversible.
4. The box-like towers will significantly impact the adjacent heritage dwellings. The insufficient setback will cause no privacy and overshadowing.
5. There has been no proper community consultation. No briefings, no webinars, and no opportunity for residents to meaningfully engage with or respond to the proposal. This failure to engage the public breaches basic planning expectations and social impact guidelines.
Generally speaking, the proposal is inappropriate in both scale and substance. It disregards heritage, harms the environment, excludes the community, and contradicts the local planning vision.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am extremely surprised & saddened to learn that the Develotek Property Group has been allowed to formally submit their proposal for a 7000+sqm development on Burgoyne St, Burgoyne Lane & Pearson Ave, Gordon for approval by the State (SSD-82395459).

Surely the State will agree that high-rise apartments with 8 towers & over 100 apartments do not belong in a heritage significant area (dating back to the 1830s) & will have dramatic effect/destroy the biodiversity of the area (eg. the forest surrounding Stony Creek & 50% of trees on-site). Surely this contradicts the Ku-ring-gai Council's commitment to environmental preservation of this site.

As a citizen of this community for over 50 years, I would like to formally object the above proposal which so blatantly supports financial profit & not the interests of its community & environment. I sincerely believe that if we give developers one step in, Gordon will develop into a monstrosity that Chatswood has become.

The sign of a good leader is one that listens to its people. I sincerely hope that my objection will be taken into account by the State for this proposal to be referred to the Independant Planning Commission. Let's work together to benefit the community & the environment & not finanacial gain!

Misleading and Disingenuous: The proposal is littered with errors, misleading statements, and unsubstantiated generalisations biased in favour of the development, with justification purposely centred on housing supply as the imperative for its approval (with undue regard for critical planning considerations).

Towering Over Gordon: The excessive height and footprint of this ‘mini-city’ is disproportionate and excessive to the surrounding low-rise streetscape and heritage context. TOD building heights are breached, visual privacy implications materially downplayed, overshadowing significantly understated, setbacks grossly inadequate, unacceptable transition impacts given surrounding low-rise residential footprint.
Environmental Destruction: 62 trees alone will be destroyed (>50% of trees on-site), including many native, mature, and exotic trees dating back to Federation, eradicating our precious tree canopy and vital wildlife habitats, contradicting the Council's commitment to environmental preservation of this site.
×
Inconsistent with Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Alternative Scenario: The proposal overtly ignores key planning principles and Council’s scenario which explicitly excluded this site from development
due to the surrounding heritage significance and value of the area, together with the site’s specific biodiversity value. This has been strategically ignored within the Developer’s proposal.
×
Ignores Heritage Significance and Value of Existing Location: The proposal fails to have proper regard to its impact on the existing heritage value and significance of the area (being one of the earliest settlements in Ku-ring-gai dating back to the 1830s). The development is justified through the Developer’s “perceived view” of the “future desired density” of the area, however has a blatant disregard to surrounding heritage homes and the Gordondale HCA which the State has earmarked for preservation.
×
Lack of Appropriate Community Engagement: Gross failure of the Developer to undertake ANY meaningful community engagement (breaching DPHI’s Social Impact requirements) to properly respect and address the concerns of the local community and appropriately assess the social impact of the proposal (i.e. no community webinars, no community briefings, emails ignored, enquiry line not provided).
×
Traffic Nightmare: The development will worsen the already congested Pacific Highway entry point, with the proposal fancifully claiming there will be no impact on the surrounding traffic network.
×
No Community Benefit: The proposal offers no improvements to local amenities or benefits to the local community.

Tree Canopy destruction- 62 trees destroyed which is disproportionate to comparable projects

Traffic planing not adequately addressed with nearly 200 car spaces on a residential road that is a major and congested feeder to Pacific Highway.

TOD building heights breached

Visual privacy not considered for incumbent neighbours

Overshadowing

Setback inadequate

Unacceptable transition impacts

Unsympathetic design to surrounding local heritage architecture

I am writing because i am concerned about the impact of this project on multiple levels, and believe the developer has used a loophole under the major state project category, to bypass reasonable scrutiny. This project contributes little to affordable housing but will have an enormous impact on the area. This is magnified by a similarly bad development on Pearson Ave Gordon where developers have used similar loopholes

The proposed building is huge in height and in a location, close to the top of a hill where is will be an eyesore and provide an unpleasant contrast with the neighbourhood. Further a tall building in this location will make it easier for other to place building of excessive height near by. It is the complete antithesis of Ku-ring-gai council development blueprint and NSW governments guidelines for the area

Traffic is already very heavy in the Burgoyne St/ Park Ave area especially for people accessing the highway or Gordon Shops. This development will generate traffic chaos. To say there are no traffic issues is completely untrue.

The development of this size will have a significant impact on tree cover, with 62 trees and more than half the tree cover being destroyed. Wildlife of the area, for which Gordon is justifiably well known, will be adversely effected

The development will be totally out of character with the area and will be a dangerous precedent for other developments in the area. It is positioned opposite an important heritage site in Gordon and will have a major impact on that heritage value. Ku-ring-gai council preferred scenario for this area specifically excludes this site from development because of Heritage values

It will bring in a very large number of people without providing infrastructure to support them and will have a major adverse impact on the Gordon community with marginal if any benefit. This proposal should go through normal Ku-ring-gai council planning processes and not use tricks to bypass these processes

I am writing as a deeply concerned resident of Gordon to lodge my strong and unequivocal objection to the proposed development. This proposal is fundamentally flawed, represents a profound misjudgement of our community's values and needs, and will have severe detrimental impacts on Gordon's character, environment, and liveability.My objection is based on a comprehensive assessment of the proposal, which I find to be:1. Misleading and Disingenuous:The entire development proposal is littered with errors, misleading statements, and unsubstantiated generalisations. It is clearly biased in favour of the developer, with its justification purposely centred on housing supply as the sole imperative for approval. This singular focus demonstrates an undue disregard for critical planning considerations that are vital for sustainable urban development and the wellbeing of our community. The proposal's narrative is a transparent attempt to railroad approval by framing a highly unsuitable development as a public necessity, ignoring its manifest deficiencies and negative externalities.2. Excessively Scaled and Poorly Designed for Gordon:What is proposed is an egregious example of overdevelopment that will manifest as a 'mini-city' towering over Gordon. The excessive height and footprint of this development are wholly disproportionate and utterly excessive to the surrounding low-rise streetscape and cherished heritage context. The proposal overtly breaches existing TOD (Transit Oriented Development) building height guidelines, demonstrating a blatant disregard for established planning frameworks. The implications for visual privacy, particularly for adjacent and opposite low-rise dwellings, are materially downplayed. Overshadowing impacts are significantly understated, and the proposed setbacks are grossly inadequate. This scale of development will create unacceptable transition impacts given the existing low-rise residential footprint immediately surrounding the site, creating an abrupt and jarring interface between high-rise apartment blocks and established homes.The design itself reflects a poorly conceived box-type structure across two towers, completely unsympathetic to the surrounding local heritage character of Gordon. It is evidently driven by a singular focus on maximising density and, consequently, the Developer’s profit, rather than integrating harmoniously into the existing urban fabric. There has been no consideration for visual harmony, privacy, or heritage cohesion with existing low-rise dwellings (both adjacent, immediately opposite, and directly behind the proposal).3. Environmental Destruction:This proposal represents an act of environmental vandalism. An alarming 62 trees alone are slated for destruction, constituting over 50% of the existing trees on-site. This includes many native, mature, and exotic trees, some dating back to Federation, which form a vital part of our local ecosystem. This widespread tree removal will I am writing as a deeply concerned resident of Gordon to lodge my strong and unequivocal objection to the proposed development. This proposal is fundamentally flawed, represents a profound misjudgement of our community's values and needs, and will have severe detrimental impacts on Gordon's character, environment, and liveability.My objection is based on a comprehensive assessment of the proposal, which I find to be:1. Misleading and Disingenuous:The entire development proposal is littered with errors, misleading statements, and unsubstantiated generalisations. It is clearly biased in favour of the developer, with its justification purposely centred on housing supply as the sole imperative for approval. This singular focus demonstrates an undue disregard for critical planning considerations that are vital for sustainable urban development and the wellbeing of our community. The proposal's narrative is a transparent attempt to railroad approval by framing a highly unsuitable development as a public necessity, ignoring its manifest deficiencies and negative externalities.2. Excessively Scaled and Poorly Designed for Gordon:What is proposed is an egregious example of overdevelopment that will manifest as a 'mini-city' towering over Gordon. The excessive height and footprint of this development are wholly disproportionate and utterly excessive to the surrounding low-rise streetscape and cherished heritage context. The proposal overtly breaches existing TOD (Transit Oriented Development) building height guidelines, demonstrating a blatant disregard for established planning frameworks. The implications for visual privacy, particularly for adjacent and opposite low-rise dwellings, are materially downplayed. Overshadowing impacts are significantly understated, and the proposed setbacks are grossly inadequate. This scale of development will create unacceptable transition impacts given the existing low-rise residential footprint immediately surrounding the site, creating an abrupt and jarring interface between high-rise apartment blocks and established homes.The design itself reflects a poorly conceived box-type structure across two towers, completely unsympathetic to the surrounding local heritage character of Gordon. It is evidently driven by a singular focus on maximising density and, consequently, the Developer’s profit, rather than integrating harmoniously into the existing urban fabric. There has been no consideration for visual harmony, privacy, or heritage cohesion with existing low-rise dwellings (both adjacent, immediately opposite, and directly behind the proposal).3. Environmental Destruction:This proposal represents an act of environmental vandalism. An alarming 62 trees alone are slated for destruction, constituting over 50% of the existing trees on-site. This includes many native, mature, and exotic trees, some dating back to Federation, which form a vital part of our local ecosystem. This widespread tree removal will eradicate our precious tree canopy and destroy vital wildlife habitats, directly contradicting Ku-ring-gai Council's stated commitment to environmental preservation and enhancement of this very site.4. Inconsistent with Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Alternative Scenario:The proposal overtly ignores key planning principles and Ku-ring-gai Council’s own Preferred Alternative Scenario. Crucially, this scenario explicitly excluded this site from development due to the surrounding heritage significance and value of the area, together with the site’s specific biodiversity value. This strategic and deliberate exclusion by the Council has been strategically ignored within the Developer’s proposal, demonstrating a shocking disregard for considered local planning.5. Ignores Heritage Significance and Value of Existing Location:The proposal fails to have proper regard for its profound impact on the existing heritage value and significance of the area. Gordon is one of the earliest settlements in Ku-ring-gai, with historical roots dating back to the 1830s. The development's justification, based on the Developer’s "perceived view" of the "future desired density" of the area, has a blatant disregard for surrounding heritage homes and the Gordon Heritage Conservation Area (HCA), which the State has earmarked for preservation. This development will irrevocably diminish the historical integrity and character of Gordon.6. Lack of Appropriate Community Engagement:There has been a gross failure by the Developer to undertake ANY meaningful community engagement. This breaches the Department of Planning and Environment (DPHI)’s Social Impact requirements. The Developer has made no genuine attempt to properly respect and address the legitimate concerns of the local community or appropriately assess the social impact of the proposal. There have been no community webinars, no community briefings, emails from residents have been ignored, and an enquiry line has not been provided. This demonstrates contempt for the very community that will be most affected.7. Traffic Nightmare:The development will undeniably worsen the already severely congested Pacific Highway entry point in Gordon. The proposal’s fanciful claim that there will be "no impact" on the surrounding traffic network is utterly baseless and defies local experience. The increased vehicle movements from this high-density development will create an unmanageable traffic nightmare for local residents and commuters alike.8. No Community Benefit:Crucially, this proposal offers absolutely no improvements to local amenities or tangible benefits to the existing local community. It is a purely commercial venture designed for maximum profit, with no reciprocal investment in the public good or infrastructure that would mitigate its immense negative impacts.In conclusion, I strongly object to this development proposal. It is fundamentally I am writing as a deeply concerned resident of Gordon to lodge my strong and unequivocal objection to the proposed development. This proposal is fundamentally flawed, represents a profound misjudgement of our community's values and needs, and will have severe detrimental impacts on Gordon's character, environment, and liveability.My objection is based on a comprehensive assessment of the proposal, which I find to be:1. Misleading and Disingenuous:The entire development proposal is littered with errors, misleading statements, and unsubstantiated generalisations. It is clearly biased in favour of the developer, with its justification purposely centred on housing supply as the sole imperative for approval. This singular focus demonstrates an undue disregard for critical planning considerations that are vital for sustainable urban development and the wellbeing of our community. The proposal's narrative is a transparent attempt to railroad approval by framing a highly unsuitable development as a public necessity, ignoring its manifest deficiencies and negative externalities.2. Excessively Scaled and Poorly Designed for Go

I wish to express my firm objection to the proposed development. This application is fundamentally incompatible with the character, environmental values, and planning principles that define this area. It must be rejected.

One of the most immediate and alarming concerns is the proposed clearing of over 60 trees—many of which are mature, native, and ecologically significant. These trees are not just incidental greenery; they are vital to local biodiversity, part of a historic canopy dating back to the Federation era, and central to the identity of Gordon. Their removal would cause permanent ecological damage, diminish wildlife habitat, and directly undermine the Council’s stated commitments to environmental protection and climate resilience.

Equally troubling is the complete lack of proper community consultation. The developer has not made any meaningful effort to engage residents or assess social impact. No webinars, no information sessions, and no functioning public enquiry process have been provided. This deliberate exclusion of community voices is unacceptable, particularly given the scale and impact of what is proposed.

The proposal itself is poorly conceived. The two-tower design is bulky, box-like, and architecturally bland. It appears to prioritise maximum yield over any thoughtful integration into the surrounding built environment. The interface with nearby low-rise homes—some directly adjacent, opposite, and behind—is abrupt and visually aggressive. There is no considered transition in scale, no meaningful effort to maintain privacy, and no regard for the aesthetic or historical cohesion of the neighbourhood.

The planning rationale presented in the application is equally weak. The proposal leans heavily on housing supply as its main justification, yet fails to demonstrate how this particular site, with its environmental and heritage sensitivities, is appropriate for such intense development. It selectively ignores site constraints and misrepresents key impacts, downplaying overshadowing, setbacks, traffic congestion, and view loss. It is not just inadequate—it is misleading.

Most notably, the development flies in the face of Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Alternative Scenario. That plan—built on extensive analysis and community consultation—explicitly excludes this site from future high-density development due to its unique heritage and biodiversity values. The developer has simply chosen to disregard this, as if Council’s strategic vision is a minor obstacle to be bypassed. That is an unacceptable approach to planning in any jurisdiction.

This site is located in one of the oldest settled areas of Ku-ring-gai, adjacent to heritage-listed homes and the Gordondale Heritage Conservation Area. The historical value of this location is not addressed in any serious way in the application. Instead, the developer relies on vague projections about “future desired character,” effectively writing off the area’s heritage significance as outdated. That is an affront to those who have worked to preserve the integrity and history of this community.

Finally, the development offers no real benefit to the people who live here. There is no investment in local infrastructure, no provision of open space, no affordable housing, and no enhancement to local services. It will add significant pressure to the existing road network—especially at the already congested Pacific Highway access point—while contributing nothing in return.

In sum, this is a speculative, profit-driven proposal that seeks to impose a large-scale development on a site clearly unsuited to it. It disregards the environment, dismisses heritage, bypasses community input, and erodes the planning frameworks put in place to protect Gordon’s character. It should not proceed.